"So you see, Dorothy, it really was possible to go home all of this time"

-TIA

And you would like for us to believe that it never once occurred to you what might be going on?

You are all either fools or liars---probably both.

Democrats Say CIA Deceived Congress for Years

-yeah, big deal.

Precisely what are they going to do about it? Nothing.

Stop voting for Democrats!!!

"Deepa July 9th, 2009 5:54 pm

Reading assignment to the members of the Congress:

Philip Agee, "Inside the Company: CIA Diary," Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1975."

The following provides considerable excerpts from "Inside the Company: ...".

"excerpts from the book
CIA Diary
Inside the Company
by Philip Agee
Penguin Books, 1975"

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIA_Diary_Agee.html

"The Nature of CIA Intervention in Venezuela",
by Jonah Gindin, Mar 22 2005

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1015

QUOTE:

Philip Agee is a former CIA operative who left the agency in 1967 after becoming disillusioned by the CIA’s support for the status quo in the region. Says Agee, “I began to realize that what I and my colleagues had been doing in Latin America in the CIA was no more than a continuation of nearly five-hundred years of this, exploitation and genocide and so forth. And I began to think about what, until then would have been unthinkable, which was to write a book on how it all works.” The book, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, was an instant best-seller and was eventually published in over thirty languages. In 1978, three years after the publication of CIA Diary, Agee and a group of like-minded journalists began publishing the Covert Operations Information Bulletin (now Covert Action Quarterly), as part of a strategy of “guerilla journalism” aimed at destabilizing the CIA and exposing their operations.

END QUOTE

Just checked, and the Quarterly website evidently no longer exists or isn't what it was at the time of the writing of this above article; unless it was supposed to be in Japanese, Chinese, or whatever the language is when trying to load only the homepage, minus the "index2.html" part of the url, for with that included, the page isn't found.

The following are extra articles I'll include the link for.

"Philip Agee, former agent who exposed CIA crimes, dies in Cuba",
by Patrick Martin, Jan 14 2008

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/agee-j14.shtml

"Former CIA Agent Phillip Agee On the Wilson Affair, the Iraq Invasion and Why Bush Sr. Calls Him A Traitor
Agee

Whoever in the White House burned Wilson’s wife could be charged under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act which imposes strict penalties on the outting of agents. We speak with former CIA agent Phillip Agee, for whom, many believe, the Act was written. "

Oct. 2, 2003

(url broken over two lines)

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/10/2/
former_cia_agent_phillip_agee_on

The following seems like an interesting and certainly considerable resource page that includes the topic of the assassination of President JFK, but while the page, only quickly looking over it a little, seems mostly about Philip Agee.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKagee.htm

Are any in the Gang of 8 speaking out forcefully about the coup in Honduras?

QUOTE:

yachtie July 9th, 2009 9:16 pm

...

Read below and you will get a picture, which will be extremely hard to swallow, and very painful to digest: “Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.

The two documents have just recently been published and are very well researched and referenced (over 400 footnotes). The articles are lengthy, some parts not easy to follow and to digest and they need to be read with an open mind. But they are well worth the effort. They provide the most distressing information (some reads like a thriller).

END QUOTE

Like a thriller? Yeah, like a James Bond movie; maybe Goldfinger?

I just read an excerpt of the first three paragraphs and posted at OpEdNews.com by William Cormier, Jan 28, 2009, and noticed that in the third, so last excerpted paragraph, while this is also the first three paragraphs of the "Colleteral Damage" PDF uploaded a day after part II, but not saying anything about part number, so I treat it as part I being posted after part II by mistake; well, Heidner seems a little confused. At least twice in the third paragraph he says that it's buildings 6, 7, and 1 that were attacked or hit at the WTC, but, afaik, it's building 2, not 6.

Given those two mistakes for a serious writer and analyst on the 9-11 attacks to make, and the very large number of references, I'm definitely not going to dedicate any time at trying to analyse, or even read, his James Bond-like thriller; especially since I've read plenty of analytical articles on the 9-11 attacks and never once saw any mention of the disappearance of the huge value in U.S. securities that he is writing about. $240bn disappearing should have been mentioned by enough 9-11 truth researchers, but I never saw any mention of this before. I had, however, certainly read about the trading the same morning, but just before the 9-11 attacks happened, that that definitely appeared certainly related to the 9-11 attacks as if insider trading, but never read about, not once, about the disappeared $240bn of U.S. securities.

Two mistakes that a serious person would catch early on, while he evidently hasn't yet caught them after having posted these two PDF's over six months ago, and these mistakes occuring right up front, so any [attentive] person should certainly catch these errors very quickly; this strikes me as possibly an innocent, but dumb set of mistakes, a little incompetency, or even more questionable than that. The many references don't prove anything until they're very carefully verified. They could be intended for trying to fool people into believing that the article is really truth-based, and based on careful analysis. Many, or even all, of the references specified as having been used for writing the article might not contain what the writer of the article claims, at all; and extremely few people would go through all of that reading, while too many people could, if not would, naively lean towards believing the writer of the article must be truthful due to the purported use of many references.

The claim that the $240bn in U.S. securities was intended for trying to buy out Russian business, or its business or economic sector, and perhaps especially the oil sector, seems certainly credible; but that doesn't necessarily mean this massive theft of U.S. securities is even true, at all. That's something that is perhaps the very first thing to verify; and the next thing I'd do is to look for reviews of the author's prior writings, for if I found only negative reviews from people who are known to be reliable in their analyses and views, then this'd make four, or three, negatives right up front, so far. It'd be three, if the theft part did happen, for that would've been verified to be true, before I'd start looking for reviews on the author's prior work.

Surely, the most knowledgeable and competent 9-11 truth researchers will be analysing these two long articles by Heidner, so I'll wait until reading from their analyses of this.

WTC building 6 was attacked and no mention of building or tower 2, eh? Doing that twice within the third paragraph, alone, and who knows how many more times throughout the rest of the article? ... Certainly odd. It'd be easy to search the article for repetitions of this obvious error, but I figured twice in the third paragraph and no mention of building 2 having been attacked by this point sufficed for me; for now, anyway.

Congress is asking about Darth Cheney running Murder Inc. from the Naval Observatory.
Anthrax anyone?

"CIA Deceived Congress for Years"....D'oh!
No sh!t, Sherlock.

It's a CABAL.
Read below and you will get a picture, which will be extremely hard to swallow, and very painful to digest: “Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<

The two documents have just recently been published and are very well researched and referenced (over 400 footnotes). The articles are lengthy, some parts not easy to follow and to digest and they need to be read with an open mind. But they are well worth the effort. They provide the most distressing information (some reads like a thriller).

The implications will challenge how we look at politics, economy, history, finance, war and terrorism. Many persons in the documents are well known; many are right now in pivotal positions of politics and finance. These people do shape OUR life and that of our children right now. The details are stunning. The consequences are BEYOND BELIEF.

Well, at least we can say that deceiving Congress is cheaper than paying them to look the other way.

Apparently Mr. Panetta was not informed of the "significant action" until a few days ago and not during his first weeks in office.
If high heads are not going to roll in the CIA because of this our country is in an even direr shape than I assumed.

Deepa

Reading assignment to the members of the Congress:

Philip Agee, "Inside the Company: CIA Diary," Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1975.

Philip Agee, "On the Run," Secaucus, N.J.: Lyle Stuart, 1987.

- They should also watch "The Abu Ghraib files"
http://www.salon.com/news/
abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/
introduction/index.html

"279 photographs and 19 videos from the Army's internal investigation record a harrowing three months of detainee abuse inside the notorious prison -- and make clear that many of those responsible have yet to be held accountable.
Recently the Department of Justice released four memos produced by its Office of Legal Counsel under former President George W. Bush. The so-called "torture" memos provided the Bush administration's legal justification for CIA interrogation methods like waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and "insects placed in a confinement box."

"In 2006, Salon published the most extensive archive of photos and videos capturing detainee abuse at the U.S. Army's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, some of it carried out by CIA agents.

"It's worth noting that when we did so, the Pentagon claimed we were damaging national security by publishing such inflammatory images -- the same argument former Bush admininistration officials are making about Obama's decision to release the memos. Shortly after we published "The Abu Ghraib Files," the Pentagon released much of the same material to the ACLU.

"The 10 galleries of photos and videos appear chronologically in the left column, followed by an additional Salon report on prosecutions for abuse and an overview of Pentagon investigations and other resources. The nine essays accompanying the photo galleries were reported and written by Michael Scherer and Mark Benjamin. Photo and video captions were compiled by Page Rockwell. Additional research, reporting and writing for "The Abu Ghraib Files" were contributed by Jeanne Carstensen, Mark Follman, Page Rockwell and Tracy Clark-Flory."

The Center for Infiltration and Assassination supposedly deals in "intelligence". They are the "jumbo shrimp" of the American government.

These guys have been allowed to run roughshod over just about every law in the book. They are seriously out of control.

Congress needs to do an audit of our intelligence services.

When torture is a headline for years...just what in the hell is "secret"?

Audit now!

What's not mentioned is that all they're talking about is letting Congress in on the secrets.

Our "representatives" are privy to a range of national security secrets that ordinary Americans are not permitted to know. The most important decisions for our country and our world are being made behind closed doors by a small coterie of powerful privileged people based knowledge only they possess.

The US is no longer a democracy. It's a national security state.

frank1569 and Poet,

frank1569, first,

Fine post to include in this page, given the article, which I find definitely lacks information that'd be useful for the public, seeming more like superficial entertainment, more than anything else. Otoh, I do appreciate the Democrat who said the CIA's been deceiving the Congress "for eight years" to be of interest, because of what "eight" years ago exactly is and what things happened prior to 9-11 that are key matters and which the Bush administration tried to treat as not important, or as if they didn't know about these matters, which definitely were important. Other than for this "for eight years" part of the article, the rest only seems like bs entertainment.

Poet,

You're being overly sarcastic, perhaps especially or even solely with respect to Ray McGovern. I also dislike the fact that former CIA officials and analysts who write in critical terms against U.S. actions, crimes, that is, but don't write about CIA crimes; it's seriously disappointing, for the CIA crimes definitely are very important. There are former CIA agents, however, who've greatly risked providing the public with serious testimonies on extreme CIA criminality, testifying in documentaries; like the one or ones by John Stockwell, as well as other documentary testimonies by other known former agents. F.e., there are the videos posted by Youtube users such as 1GangRelated (or 1GangRelated1 and/or 1GangRelated2) and CIACoupsOfTerrorism, while these videos are entitled, "Secrets of the CIA" or "Secrets of CIA". InformationClearingHouse.info has a full copy of a similarly titled page for a video-taped lecture by John Stockwell in 1987, plus the transcript, or else an article on the same topic, beneath the embedded video, which I think ICH includes a download link for, along with the embedded video.

No CIA analysts or ops people of years of experience would be without knowing about the testimonies of former agents in these aforementioned videos. But Ray McGovern is one former CIA analyst, among others, who seems to [never] write about extreme crimes of the CIA, and that is a disappointing omission of them to make. He's written critically and based on his first-hand knowledge of some former CIA analysts or officials, Robert Gates, I believe; although he's written in much less critical terms about Robert Gates since, too.

BUT, I have not read Ray McGovern speaking of the CIA as if it's crime-less, either. It's just that he apparently doesn't write on the topic of CIA crimes; or if he sometimes does or has, then it's apparently very rare.

That he doesn't pretend that the CIA is crime-less, however, makes your sarcasm in his regard clearly is exaggerated. It's an attitude that lacks critical objectivity. It is or certainly appears pretentious.

How does the NYT report this without even mentioning Panetta's own words just 3 months ago?

Panetta, May 2009: "Let me be clear: It is not our (CIA) policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values... our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah... We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is..."

Panetta, July 2009: "The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed "significant actions" from Congress from 2001 until late last month..."

Now, one of those times he was lying like a f@#king shag rug. And the NYT just ignores it? WTF...

Democrats Say CIA Deceived Congress for Years:

HaHaHaHaHa!--Ya think?!--oh dear, oh dear, I wonder what his holiness, Ray McGovern, thinks of this? I'll bet he is shocked, just shocked and speechless.

Poet

The article starts with, "The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed "significant actions" from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said".

FROM 2001?

The next paragraph begins by saying, "In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had "misled members" of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, ...".

8 YEARS?!

2001 was 8 years ago, but years ago precisely puts us back at not even August 31, 2001, but July 9, 2001, so did these Democrats who said 'eight years' literally mean eight, or might they meant 'nearly eight'? If they meant it literally, then what were the CIA covering up from Congress in early July 2001? Might it be that the Bush administration was already planning to command this war on Afghanistan and just waiting for the 9-11 attacks to use these to get the support of the public of the USA?

After all, the Bush administration knew by around that time or earlier, and many have reported that it was earlier, at least as of spring 2001, that the U.S. had received warnings from a number of European, and possibly other, intelligence agencies; and the Bush administration ordered FBI agents who were investigating and monitoring terrorism suspects in the U.S., who were suspected of being the people planning to commit attacks in the U.S., including with the use of hijacked commercial airlines to be used as "missiles". I think he was AG, or some high-ranking official in the White House, and that the name was Ashcroft, who a reporter questioned before the end of July 2001 about Ashcroft's unusual use of leased jets to travel, instead of the normal use of commercial airlines; and the reporter reported this or asked this of Ashcroft on July 26, 2001. Ashcroft reportedly replied that he was using leased jets because he had been informed by the FBI that it was believed that terrorism attacks were planned for within the U.S., including with the use of hijacked commercial airliners.

The CIA would've certainly, without any possible room for doubt, known about the several warnings the foreign intelligence agencies had provided, and I believe some of those did stipulate that it was believed commercial airliners being hijacked was a very likely method the terrorism plotters were planning to use.

There are many unanswered questions about the 9-11 attacks and the following is a very interesting "take" on these attacks from retired and clearly sound, sharp of wit, ... Major General Albert Stubblebine.

"General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud!" (5:16), posted by surgarpuddin88, Jun 28 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

That's a clearly important video to carefully listen to.

And I'm in the process of finishing the viewing of the following video, though a 3-clip copy at Youtube.

"Ludicrous Diversion - 7/7 London Bombings Documentary" (27:53), July 9 2009

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14282

That provides a link for the full video copy at Google, a single-clip copy, and posted there Sep. 15, 2006. People wanting to view the video in 3 clips can use the copy at Youtube, for which the link is provided in the Google page.

The first two clips of the 3 at Youtube are definitely well done and evidently important. Many people in Britain want a full public inquiry, but while I haven't listened to the 3rd clip of the above video at Youtube, yet, I did catch the beginning of the clip saying that we can't trust the inquiry even if it is made fully public, so am looking forward to the explanation, which should be interesting, given what the first two clips say.

And it's not the "ludicrous diversion" is in the title used for the video because it's what Tony Blair said of, I guess, criticisms against the government's evidently very bogus "official story" on the July 7, 2005, bombings in London which killed many people and wounded many others. And "man" was it bogus, if what this above video says is true, and I think it's a truthful video.

I do know, however, that there definitely were serious problems in the "official story" for those specific bombings, as well as for other terrorist events the British government claimed were going to be committed and/or which the government claimed were prevented; either way, always bogus crap from the government. This is something I learned years ago through articles of critical analysis and some news media reports.

This London Bombings documentary is very good and, I'd say, important. The video with Major General Stubblebine clearly is definitely and very important. And the CIA would have known about what I said above regarding forewarnings, as well as what Major General Stubblebine clearly and well explains.

"Democrats Say CIA Deceived Congress for Years"

Another incident of the maggots calling the pus white.

Presumably, this clears up the question of what Pelosi

was told about TORTURE. But, it doesn't make clear why

we still have a CIA around deceiving government,

assassinating leaders and making the world less safe for

democracy. You'd almost think they were Nazis ...

in fact, the CIA was founded with NAZIS brought in by

Allen Dulles and gang under Operation Paperclip!

And, meanwhile . . . Obama's idea of "transparency" . . . ???!!!!

QUOTE: This is the information that Obama is threatening to veto a bill that would require a wider dissemination to Congress of intelligence information---to full House and Senate intelligence committees, not just to the gang of 8 (well-named) congressional leaders.UNQUOTE

"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"

This is news?
Only the willfully ignorant don't know this already.

yes, How about gang stalking warrantless surviellance cointel pro right wing Bush /Cheney community watch christian torture freaks.

Domestic Terrorism to promit the growth of a nation wide right wing spy network using fearmongering and NSL letters.

8 years of stazi police buildup thanks to republicans and complicit democrats.

Treason, the circumvention of the constitution.

Impeach the supreme court and the Senate if they dont overturn the Patriot Acts and warrant less surviellance.

CIA stands for Constanly Ignoring American constitutional laws.

The article did no give a hint of one deception.

What's new?

Deepa

Did CIA "deceive" Congress? Or Has CIA been preparing ground for the members of the Congress to PROFIT?

Read:

"FINANCE: U.S. Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars"

By Abid Aslam

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41893

WASHINGTON, Apr 7 (IPS) - U.S. lawmakers have a financial interest in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a review of their accounts has revealed.

Members of Congress invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contracts to provide goods and services to U.S. armed forces, say nonpartisan watchdog groups.

David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq, is to brief the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees on Tuesday and Wednesday. The latest findings are unlikely to have a significant impact on this week's proceedings but could stoke anti-incumbent sentiment in this year of presidential and legislative elections.

Lawmakers charged with overseeing Pentagon contractors hold stock in those very firms, as do vocal critics of the war in Iraq, says the Centre for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who staked his 2004 presidential bid in part on his opposition to the war, tops the list of investors. His holdings in firms with Pentagon contracts of at least five million dollars stood at between 28.9 million dollars and 38.2 million dollars as of Dec. 31, 2006. Kerry sits on the Senate foreign relations panel.

Members of Congress are required to report their personal finances every year but only need to state their assets in broad ranges.

Other top investors include Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican with holdings of 12.1 million - 49.1 million dollars; Rep. Robin Hayes, a North Carolina Republican (9.2 million - 37.1 million dollars); Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin (5.2 million - 7.6 million dollars); and Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat (2.7 million - 6.3 million dollars).

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat and former governor of West Virginia who chairs the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, invested some 2.0 million dollars in Pentagon contractors, CRP says.

Other panel chiefs who invested in defence firms include Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who presides over the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In all, 151 current members of Congress - more than one-fourth of the total - have invested between 78.7 million dollars and 195.5 million dollars in companies that received defence contracts of at least 5.0 million dollars, according to CRP.

These companies received more than 275.6 billion dollars from the government in 2006, or 755 million dollars per day, says budget watchdog group OMB Watch.

The investments yielded lawmakers 15.8 million - 62 million dollars in dividend income, capital gains, royalties, and interest from 2004 through 2006, says CRP.

Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues. Many are leaders in their industries and, as such, feature in the investment portfolios of millions of ordinary people who invest at least a portion of their savings in mutual funds, which in turn hold stocks in up to hundreds of companies.

"Giant corporations outside of the defence sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defence contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public," says CRP.

"So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defence contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them," the group acknowledges.

If some of the stocks appear innocent, aides say legislators also are. Some did not buy the stocks in question but inherited them. Many hold them in blind trusts, so called because the investments are handled by independent entities, at least theoretically without the politicians' knowledge of how their assets are being managed.

Even so, according to CRP, owning stock in companies under contract with the Pentagon could prove "problematic for members of Congress who sit on committees that oversee defence policy and budgeting."

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees held 3.0 million - 5.1 million dollars in companies specialising in weapons and other exclusively military goods and services, it added.

Critics have assailed President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney for their ties to companies seen as benefiting from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Bush was characterised as pushing conflict in the interest of the oil fraternity whence he hailed.

Before becoming vice president, Cheney headed Halliburton, a major player in the oil services industry and the object of controversies involving political connections, government contracts, and business ethics.

Halliburton's subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, was given multi-billion-dollar contracts to provide construction, hospitality, and other services to the U.S. military following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The contracts drew fire because of Cheney's history and then-ongoing financial relationship with the firm, and because the company did not have to compete for the Pentagon's business. The firm was renamed KBR Inc. after Halliburton spun it off last year.

The CIA has actually deceived Congress? Really? Well a big "effing" DUH !!

The CIA deceives congress? Oh, come on, Congress "deceives" itself.

The CIA has done many actions that the long expanse of history has judged as stupid, with the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran as a prime example. What the Company did during the reign of Dubya, Cheney, & Co. was beyond stupid, as any pragmatic half-brain whom worships at the alter of realpolitik could see. This particular period of short term expediency (which included deliberate lying to Congress) will haunt the CIA worse than the Church hearings of the 70's.

CIA lies to Congress, Congress lies to the people, corporations and their advertisers lie to everyone, the press and news media lie, politicians campaign on lies, we go to war based on lies, money is invested on lies -- the nation, economy, and culture is based on lies and deception -- it's everywhere. And, of course, decisions are based on false information, leading to lousy decisions.

Back when, when people were trying to understand what evil is, they invented the personification of evil and called him the 'father of lies'. Maybe they were on to something...

The CIA has almost no human "assets," those require language skills and courage, they get their intel by paying for it & electronically......so who's cover is gonna be blown? The torturers.

Langley Virginia should be erased from the pages of time...., but not until Honduras is wrapped up.

Well dah! The CIA has always been the assassination wing of the Bush Crime Family.
It's against their code of 'ethics' to tell the truth.

The hell with all this secrecy!!! The citizens of this nation need to know the truth about what our government is doing. The citizens should not be left out of the loop. The covert activities of the CIA have been shown to be wrong again and again. Of course we don't learn about it until way after the events. Every war we have been engaged in for decades has been proceeded by some covert activity of the CIA.

We need to shut down the CIA.

The "news" from this NY Times article is not that reflected in the headline (CIA deceives Congress...that's news?) but the "related development" reported in the article. This is the information that Obama is threatening to veto a bill that would require a wider dissemination to Congress of intelligence information---to full House and Senate intelligence committees, not just to the gang of 8 (well-named) congressional leaders.

"Related" indeed! What could be more threatening to the capacity of CIA to continue to deceive Congress than the ability to control tightly the small group of people who might be getting their information directly from the President? (Let us presume that a President himself or herself would never deceive Congress!---big presumption.)

Will this veto ever happen? I doubt it. I don't think this "consensus" President would ever have the nerve to veto an act of Congress on a truly sensitive matter. But I'm not sure at all that Congress would ever pass such a bill, between the "security" obsessions of some Republicans and blue dog Democrats, and the reluctance of most other Democrats to "offend" the President, upon whose coat-tails of popularity they supinely cling. The mere "threat" of the veto may do the trick.

Well look (as the President likes to say when he thinks he's articulating pragmatic truths), the fact is that Obama is getting enough credit through his mouth-piece Leon Panetta (who, by the way, apparently never protested CIA deceptions when he was Clinton's Chief of Staff) for wanting to be more open with Congress. The Supine Ones can go back to their customary obeisance to Obama by reassuring themselves, by virtue of the Panetta statements, that Obama's heart is in the right place and that he will yet someday and somehow move to change the way "we do business in Washington" even while he and they find ways to continue to do the same old business. It works in health care and global warming and peace in the middle east and environmental regulations and so many other ways, why won't it work here?

The congress, elected by the country's citizens, should be consistently and honestly informed on intelligence activity conducted on our behalf.